Talk to The Times

Answers to Readers’ Questions About State’s Secrets

Published: November 29, 2010

First of all, a lot of what appears in a free press — not just secret cables — can be injurious to America’s diplomacy. To pick a recent example, news organizations have regularly quoted senior American officials (sometimes by name, but often without authorization) accusing President Karzai’s government in Afghanistan of corruption and incompetence. The fact that American officials share these views with the press is undoubtedly irritating to President Karzai, and may make him harder to deal with. And yet our relationship with President Karzai and his government is at the heart of American strategy in Afghanistan. The public that sends the money and manpower to pursue that strategy is entitled to know the nature of our allies, even if that complicates the work of diplomats.

Multimedia

Second, while it is enlightening to see these observations in official cables, for the most part they enlarge rather than upend our understanding of complex foreign relations. For example, The Times has reported on numerous occasions that Iran’s Arab neighbors share America’s (and Israel’s) worry about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The cables dramatize the depth of their concern, but the fact of their concern is not revelatory.

Third, foreign leaders generally cooperate with the United States — or withhold their cooperation — based on self-interest. Some of the leaders quoted in the articles that we have written based on these secret cables will surely be (or at least will act) horrified that the United States did not do a better job of protecting their private conversations from public scrutiny. But they see advantages in cooperating with the United States that transcend embarrassment. They need our aid, they want our business, they want our solidarity against common enemies. So while we don’t want to dismiss the possible harm to American diplomacy, we should not exaggerate it, either.

Finally, the government is not an infallible judge of what is in the national interest. This country has a long history of information being stamped “secret” in order to hide malfeasance, or cover up embarrassing misjudgments, or paper over policy disputes. We listen to the government’s case for secrecy with great respect, but we do not always agree. — Bill Keller

Are the Documents Genuine?

Q.The New York Times coverage today about the WikiLeaks diplomatic documents is sadly lacking an explanation as to why The Times considers them trustworthy. Without some proof that they are all authentic, at the very least The Times should say — in the very first paragraph — that they could be counterfeit or otherwise changed to deliberately disadvantage the United States’s international goals. Not doing so is an editorial failure.

— Herb Zydney, New York City

A. The contents of the cables are consistent with much other reporting we have done on America’s foreign relations, and the format is familiar from embassy cables we have seen from other sources. But the most reliable authentication is this: In our extensive conversations with the United States government — in this case, and in the two previous releases of classified documents by WikiLeaks — no official has questioned the genuineness of the material, or suggested that they have been manipulated in any way. — Bill Keller

The Times and WikiLeaks

Q. CNN reported that it did not have advance access to the documents because it “declined to sign a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks.” Since The New York Times seems to have advance access, what were the conditions for getting access? Did The Times have to agree to anything?

— Chuck Gasperi, San Francisco

Q.Your decision to become a “media partner” of WikiLeaks is disgusting. Transparency, like everything else, is not an absolute good, and governments have both a right and a responsibility to conduct internal discussions about sensitive subjects free from the prying eyes of thieves and their media partners.

— Jerry Harkins

I do understand your decision to selectively publish the recent WikiLeaks documents, seeing as you are in fact a conscientious news organization, but I don’t think you should exclude WikiLeaks from the burden of transparency. WikiLeaks is an outfit that cries for freedom of information, yet insists that its contributors remain anonymous — a simple and silly contradiction. If Julian Assange were to join the party he has started, shouldn’t he be called on to disclose a list of names of site contributors over the years? And shouldn’t he be more forthcoming about his present whereabouts?

No, he cites a concern for “safety,” but only when it applies to him (not Americans). I think that, following from the fact that you are a conscientious news organization, you should take Assange to task. He really is nothing more that a narcissist posing as a moralist, and a man whose neurotic tendencies have, sadly, probably come about through long periods of personal suffering — a man whose own deep victimization has now led to the victimization of incredible numbers of innocent people.

So I ask you to please, bring some real, rational scrutiny to Assange and Wikileaks. Demand the same transparency that he demands of us. And expose his neurotic pronouncements as being what they are — and not some abstract call for moral justice.

Thanks and regards,

— Kevin Mercey, Chicago, IL

A. WikiLeaks is not a “media partner” of The Times. We signed no agreement of any kind, with WikiLeaks or anyone else. In fact, in this case — our third round of articles based on documents obtained by WikiLeaks — we did not receive the documents from WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of the group, decided to withhold the material from us, apparently because he was offended by our reporting on his legal and organizational problems. The London newspaper, The Guardian, gave us a copy of the archive, because they considered it a continuation of our collaboration on earlier WikiLeaks disclosures. (The Guardian initially asked us not to reveal that they were our source, but the paper’s editor said on Sunday night that he was no longer concerned about anonymity.)

We coordinated with the other news organizations on the timing of the release, but not the contents of our articles. We agreed to publish our articles over a number of days rather than in one great heave. The dipomatic cables cover a far wider array of subjects than the earlier disclosures of documents from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. This gradual release allows us — and our readers — to absorb the material and put it in context. It also allows more time for serious (and fruitful, in my view) discussions with the government what should be omitted from public disclosure.

WikiLeaks is a source of raw material, which we have used to write articles about America’s foreign relations. No one from WikiLeaks had any input into our articles, or was allowed to see them before publication.

Like most sources, WikiLeaks has its own motives. Our motive, in fact our reason for being, is to provide information and analysis to help readers decide what they think about the world.

As Mr. Mercey observes, WikiLeaks is also a story. We have written extensively about the organization, its legal and organizational difficulties and the official reaction to its activities (in this article, for example, and others). I expect that we will continue to report on the subject.